FreshFluff

Actually, I think they mean it both ways. "At the end of the day, you get nothing for nothing. Sitting flat on your butt doesn't buy any bread." I agree with you about "give them a pass."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxayhMn6YAU

When you've forgotten something

Three vacations a year: I'm guessing that 2 of the 3 vacations are long-weekends in a Hamptons sub-let. That explains part of the driving expenses and the need for a BMW or SUV. I still don't understand why the need both. I also find it hard to believe theyonly eat out once every two weeks; it doesn't match the rest of their lifestyle. The goal of both of those is the same: to increase the kids' chances of getting into the parents' alma mater(s). It's possible that most oI doubt these expenses are going anywhere. Probably hair , a trainer, and facials for the wife. She won't be happy if she has to give these up, especially in Manhattan where perfectly groomed and worked-out women are everywhere.

Zimbardo's experiment doesn't excuse the "brothers'" behavior any more than the Milgram experiment excuses the Nazis'. But it's hard for me to believe that all the brothers are sociopaths, even if this fraternity selects for that type. They're all culpable, but from what I've seen so far, the president and a few of others appear to be more culpable than the rest. Hazing has always been driven by a desire to boast about it later, and social media exacerbates that effect. Check out Total Frat Move. It's written by some guy in his late 20s who probably fabricates most of it, but frat boys love to RT his stuff. http://i.imgur.com/4PCgzu1.png

Unicorn is right that this has little to do with the Duke case. I don't agree that all of the "brothers" are sociopaths. (The frat president, who appears smarter than the rest, might be.) This reminds me of the Stanford Prison Experiment. During the early seventies, a Stanford psychologist recruited some undergraduates for a study on authority. Half were randomly assigned to be guards in a "prison" while the rest were assigned to be prisoners. Because this happened at the peak of the counter-culture, none of the students wanted to be guards at first. Yet by the end of the experiment, the "guards" had gotten so brutal to the "prisoners" that the experiment had to be shut down early.

Where would gay porn be without them?

From a legal perspective, it's very difficult to prohibit free association in this way, especially if the school allows students to live off camps. Let's say ten guys want to live together and call their house "Roger." Every year, as seniors leave, they interview new freshmen to take their places. What are you, as a university administrator, going to do about it? From a practical perspective, it's usually a bad idea. At many schools, fraternity alumni are the big donors, both because they tend to be gregarious and successful and because these guys usually have warm feelings about their college experience. Banning them would mean that many future donors would go elsewhere and the ones that go anyway wouldn't feel the same bond to the school. Even small liberal arts colleges that tried to ban Greek orgs eventually relent.

If the goal is to discourage exclusion, those measures won't help. The most exclusive organizations are the least interested in advertising. They recruit through word of mouth, usually limited to alumni of certain high schools and certain athletic teams. In any case, banning advertising on campus to won't make much of an impact in the age of social media. Neither will limiting access to directories that are available to all students, if that's possible at all.

Most people feel like they belong only if they exclude others. That's human nature, unfortunately.

Hazing is inevitable wherever groups of testosterone-charged young men gather. Everyone I know who has worked in the finance industry been hazed in some way. Hazing with alcohol makes it much more risky. As for fraternities, the macho factor among that group has increased due to social media.

NPR article about the case, which includes the grand jury report These are texts between the "brothers," some of which had been deleted. http://www.collegian.psu.edu/news/crime_courts/article_1c1e6914-350c-11e7-b3b1-436b96fe269f.html http://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/collegian.psu.edu/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/e/ec/eecfd394-3506-11e7-98be-93684cd17003/591242df9c432.image.png?resize=1200%2C590

Congrats, Bballer! You must be really proud!

@BasketBaller , any news on your other son and his decision? Your Annapolis-bound son must be excited!

Juan, I didn't mean to offend you by citing what you had posted earlier, and I apologize if I did. If it matters, I deleted that part of my post. However, I think that indirectly calling me and others posting in this thread unkind and impolite is unfair. I agree that high minded discourse leaves us feelingn better. However, from my experience with a range of internet conspiracy theorist--men's rights activists, Holocaust deniers, and others--high-minded discourse doesn't get through to them . The best way to get through is to use their tactics and their language--or rather, the evolutionary psychology language that they regularly misuse.

BA, there's no need to apologize for your toes. This issue is very common among men. If your pedicurist was surprised, it's because she mainly sees female clients. You're right not to paint your toes unless you want to give off a feminine vibe. There's an oral medication that works, but it can harm the liver. The best thing you can do is concentrate on making your feet look good overall. If you have callouses on your heels or the ball of your foot, you can easily remove them yourself with one of those "grating" foot files, like this.

So you're supporting straight men's decisions not to have relationships with women. Yet you call Juan a "mangina" for doing just that, simply because his beliefs about women are different from yours.

I read a flattering review by a libertarian that summarizes most of the arguments. Yeah, I get that the court system sometimes discriminates against fathers. I don't need to pay $4.99 to learn that. If you MRAs were focused on correcting these issues, I'd be more sympathetic. In the real world, the manosphere sees men as hypergamous whores who need to be controlled by men. MGTOW_tx, you made both of these points yourself. You called women whores and said that you need to put your foot down by telling your wife you're the man with the penis.

Watch it anytime for $4.99. https://www.amazon.com/Red-Pill-Cassie-Jaye/dp/B06XGY67WQ/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1491674212&sr=8-1&keywords=red+pill+movie I watched the trailer and saw nothing new. Am I supposed to be surprised that most workplace fatalities are men or that many men lose a large chunk of their assets when they divorce. Also, the movie isn't particularly well done, which I assume is why it never found a distributor.

What's incorrect? That being a man doesn't make you an alpha or that you've spent time around evangelicals? Writing clearly is masculine behavior. And yes, I know your views are inconsistent with those of evangelicals, which is why I was surprised that you used evangelical language. LOL. Juan has posted that he used to take female clients--and had a fair number of them. (Juan, feel free to correct if I'm wrong.) As for the bolded portion, much of the MGTOW movement consists of men who have never been married. Are they manginas too?

With respect, having a dick makes you a man, but it doesn't make you an alpha. I'm glad things are working out with your wife, dumb female shit notwithstanding. Are you an evangelical, or did you grow up in an evangelical household?

I'm serious. What drew you, a gay or bi man, to the MGTOW movement? Did you lose most of your assets in a divorce from a woman?

MGTOW_Tx, You manosphere guys are always saying that it's not possible for bitches women to have straight male friends. Men want to get laid, period. So how about you and your straight MTGOW pals? Did you become an MGTOW mainly to get access to some straight male ass?